Maximum freedom, minimal responsibility

Opinion: Ken Trainor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Ken Trainor

Staff writer

So here we are, a dozen years into the third millennium, and evidently no one is safe — anywhere. We and our loved ones are completely vulnerable to any deranged individual with a grudge and access to all the guns he wants, who takes it into whatever's left of his mind to make a name for himself by shooting up a herd of docile humanity, collected passively somewhere for his killing pleasure. Doesn't matter where — post offices, schools, libraries, churches, shopping mall movie theaters, any place in a relatively free society where people congregate and security is light. The Batman massacre is the latest.

After each incident, we shake our heads, share the grief from a distance, then get distracted and move on. A few still have the nerve to say, "Now? Now at long last will we wake up and do something about the scourge of guns in this society?"

The answer, of course, is no because we all recognize nothing can be done. The NRA has purchased — or intimidated — the vast majority of our elected officials, and they also have their five protectors on the Supreme Court who would overrule any legislation that somehow got through Congress or the state legislatures.

In effect, we are ruled by the NRA, which is ironic because NRA members are forever talking about how they need their weapons to fight tyranny.

But the only true tyranny in this country is the stranglehold of the NRA.

This is a golden era for gun pushers. They have more money than God, and can always get their way. If a madman commits mass murder with easily accessible guns (thanks to their lobbying efforts), it's not their problem. Not their responsibility.

That's the problem.

The NRA, four million members strong, is the last bastion of ultraliberalism — maximum freedom, minimal responsibility. You've heard the old adage, "With freedom comes responsibility"? Doesn't apply. They don't feel any responsibility to the society at large and its legitimate concerns over safety. They can't even accept the modest inconveniences that would accompany effective regulation of firearms. That would infringe their personal freedom, which is far more important to them than the common good.

"Gun nuts," as they are often called, aren't "nuts" because of guns. It's their inflexible extremism that makes them nutty. If they ever acknowledged the responsibility that comes with their freedom, the rest of us might have some slim hope for progress. But they don't. Not satisfied with unfettered access to guns, they now want libertine laws allowing conceal and carry with few, if any, restrictions.

Our only real hope to break their stranglehold would be a series of class-action lawsuits similar to the ones that eventually forced the tobacco industry to start accepting responsibility for the scourge they inflict on society.

That's a long shot to be sure, but without that, we won't have any shot at all. The only ones with a shot will be the madmen who take full advantage of the NRA's irresponsibility, making the rest of us more likely to join the lengthening list of massacre casualties.

There is, however, one avenue the rest of us can pursue: indicting the NRA in the court of public opinion. We can publicly call on the gun lobby to start accepting their share of the responsibility for the mass murders committed in an atmosphere of easy access to guns, which they do more than any other entity to perpetuate.

Where is the responsibility, NRA, that comes with your Second Amendment freedom? Guns don't kill people. No, madmen with weapons of mass destruction, easily obtained through your efforts, kill large numbers of people.

Is the NRA responsible for this? Partly. How big a part? Depends on who you ask, I suppose. Let's ask the people in Aurora, Colo., who just finished burying their loved ones. Let's ask the folks in Littleton, Colo., who are still mourning the students at Columbine High School 13 years later.

There's a long list of people we can ask, and the list keeps growing.

Where is the responsibility that comes with your freedom, NRA?

The rest of us need to keep repeating that question in the court of public opinion. The NRA believes they can bully us into silence. We have to prove them wrong. If we don't, our elected officials will never address our safety concerns.

If you're a member of the NRA and find all this offensive, then you, too, should speak up. Not to us — to your own organization. Tell them that freedom without responsibility is immoral and you don't want to be part of an organization that refuses to address this society's legitimate safety concerns. We're talking about doing something more significant than offering firearm certification classes.

The NRA has won (this round anyway). Their freedom is assured. They can afford to be gracious. So how about an answer — no dodges, no cop-outs, not the usual spiteful, sneering, haughty, we-know-it-all-and-you-don't-know-jack answers we usually hear. How about a straightforward answer to your fellow countrymen, who are wondering what you can do to help keep the deadly firearms you have made so easily accessible out of the hands of madmen? We're scared and we don't feel safe – and with very good reason.

With freedom comes responsibility. With great freedom comes great responsibility.

The NRA is part of the problem.

When will they become part of the solution?


Reader Comments

53 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

full moon  

Posted: August 16th, 2012 7:22 AM

Responsible gun owner?


Posted: August 15th, 2012 11:52 AM

BTW, if you want to be defenseless and helpless...than by all means don't carry a gun, don't do anything - live in fear but do not subject me, my family or friends to the same fantasy world you live in. I've lived long enough to know that evil can find anyone anytime...but I want to be prepared and be able to return home. Evil doers don't care and don't follow whatever law you sanction. That is why each and every person needs to be able to defend themselves with equal or better tools.


Posted: August 15th, 2012 11:47 AM

Oh brother...another anti gun story...what a surprise. If the NRA is sooo powerful, maybe they can get me a raise, a free house, a free car, etc. But they are not...NRA members are not nuts either. We are the ones who are fighting for your rights. Just because some mad man went on a rampage does not mean EVERYONE should be characterized the same way. I want to see breath immobilizers attached to EVERY car because more people die from drunks than from guns - yr over yr every yr.


Posted: August 15th, 2012 11:32 AM

The RIGHT of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as recognized by the 2nd Amendment, right after the RIGHT to free speech and freedom from religion is just that, a RIGHT. it is NOT some privilege 'granted' by the Government, it is a RIGHT that shall not be infringed. If you hate guns, FINE, don't own them. But please be smart enough to recognize that you need not fear the law abiding.

RandyP from Chicago  

Posted: August 15th, 2012 11:26 AM

I am an NRA member, like over 4 MILLION of my fellow law abiding citizens. The NRA is US, the law abiding. I have NEVER read an NRA pronouncement supporting the actions of criminals. As a lifelong Chicago resident I know that the decades long gun ban did NOTHING to prevent the criminals from doing their armed crimes. It only made us the honest citizens defenseless prey for the predators. Illinois needs to wake up, smell the Constitution and join the other 49 States. We are a laughing stock.


Posted: August 6th, 2012 6:39 PM

Guns used in WI were purchased LEGALLY. Your reality needs to change Ray.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: August 6th, 2012 1:03 PM

gunz - you are a one note samba. We all know your position and also know how out of touch with reality you are. Reasonable suggestions are what we seek - not just your stock line.


Posted: August 6th, 2012 12:23 PM

More gun fun in WI. One day people will wake up to the realities of WHAT GUNS REALLY DO- KILL PEOPLE.

Ray Simpson from oak park  

Posted: August 6th, 2012 11:45 AM

Question - the illegal traffic of guns is a crime and should be treated as such. I have never loaded more than 5 rounds into a clip because that is what the range officer commands. Some people get a real kick out of 100 round clip I see it as burning up money at a heck of a pace. The 100 round drum of 45ACP costs about $60 for about one minute of mayhem. If the enforcement of existing laws was absolute most of the problem would go away. Accidents happen and rarely to conscientious people who know the rules. I shot next to a junior team from Michigan at Camp Perry one year and I have never seen a more careful group of shooters and coaches. They were from the UP and have lived around guns all of their lives.


Posted: August 6th, 2012 10:45 AM

I support people who hunt and use guns for sport. But I have yet to hear a persuasive argument for private ownership of automatic weapons or 100 round magazines. I don't consider "The Constitution says I can have guns and I need to protect myself against armed thugs" persuasive. That's a classic example of gun supply creating more gun demand. Can demand be reduced by cutting back supply? Should police officers have to worry about being outgunned when they arrive at a crime scene?


Posted: August 6th, 2012 10:39 AM

conversation. That responsibility falls on both sides. Illegal guns come from somewhere. Whether they are stolen from gun dealers or owners who don't secure them, illegally sold, etc. doesn't negate the fact that they are out there. We couldn't get rid of all the guns if we wanted to (and I don't want to). Stricter enforcement is great but it happens after a gun has already been used. I want them used less. We should all want that. So, in my mind, that's only part of the solution.


Posted: August 6th, 2012 10:34 AM

Ray, thank you for taking the time to actually address some of the issues. That's the only way this gets better. I've said before I'm not against gun ownership but I believe that limits need to exist. The discussion is where those limits should be. I completely agree that illegal guns are a problem but they aren't the only problem. Accidental shootings, suicides, the Colorado shooting, etc. may be able to be reduced with better and more uniform gun laws. And maybe not. But there's no actual

Ray Simpson from Oak park  

Posted: August 6th, 2012 7:16 AM

Question- No one is arguing for no restrictions. There is a minefield that one traverses when legally purchasing a handgun. The problem is the illegal guns and their availability. Since they are illegal and most of the owners are not permitted (by law) to own posses or use fire arms, it seems to me that we should have a zero tolerance for weapons felony. The laws are there, the enforcement is not. Judges who turn a blind eye to kids toting cannons should be thrown off the bench. Young adults who do the crime should do time that is so severe that it isn't worth the risk. Gun crime should disqualify any eligibility for plea bargaining or reduced sentences. Our community should earn the reputation for prosecuting thugs with guns to the maximum of the law. Our gun violence problem seems to be within communities where gangs, crime and drug money are out of control, the community has a responsibility to get tough on local gangs and to create a situation where the bad guys move on. the control of guns seems to be a quick fix for a deeper societal problem that is not going to go away easily. A gun is not the problem - a gun in irresponsible hands is!


Posted: August 5th, 2012 10:16 PM

people are always going to find a way to kill others that's a complete cop out. We can't stop all killings so we shouldn't try to stop any? Should there be no restrictions on gun ownership, sales, and possession at all? If that's what you believe then bring that to the table and defend that position in a reasoned manner. Convince the rest of us. If some limitations are OK then let's find a middle ground. Your rights are not more important than the rights of everyone else.


Posted: August 5th, 2012 10:09 PM

It's too bad the discussion went off the rails with comments about banning cars and knives and about how confused Ken is. Right now we aren't talking about knives or cars, we are talking about guns. We can have the car and knife discussion next. If you really believe they are the same as guns then defend yourself and your home with a knife instead of a gun and make more people comfortable. If you aren't willing to do that then stop pretending they are the same. If the only argument is that(cont)

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: August 4th, 2012 7:08 AM

Q- please don't confuse Ken Trainor by confusing TSA and NRA! Give him the opportunity to blame what happens at the airport security checkpoint on the National Rifle Association or perhaps the National Restaurant Association and he will do it.

joe from south oak park  

Posted: August 4th, 2012 1:30 AM

not to mention we would need a sports car ban. Every car with a gas tank that holds more than 10 gallons and goes over 65 mph. give it up trainor. nobody wants to hear your tired rhetroic.

Ban Cars Also  

Posted: August 3rd, 2012 6:01 PM

As of Wednesday 533 people in Illinois have been killed in car accidents. Thats a 9 percent rise since last years July total. The question is why does the government allow people with mental illness, drug addiction or any other issue, drive? I have five cars, is this too many? I also have a license. Thanks

Ban Knives Also  

Posted: August 3rd, 2012 5:48 PM

If were going to ban/require licenses for firearms, than we should ban knives also. There was an incident in china, where a man killed 8 people and wounded another 5 with a knife yesterday, google it. Theres also assault knives the military uses. We should ban everything including rocks and sticks. You fools should be more worried about the way folks drive nowadays than firearms. A car is far more dangerous than a rifle, you ignorant anti american nimrods. pffft

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 3rd, 2012 5:01 PM

Cont... That is total invasion of your civil liberties to have some stranger be given the right to check out all parts of you and take pictures of females and keep them on file. None of it is keeping any American safe. If you want to be really concerned about your rights, start asking the NRA to stop invasive searches at air ports. Go back to the gate checking for people carry guns.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 3rd, 2012 4:58 PM

Don, I understand that the NRA needs to keep donations coming in, and they aren't just from individuals who think the NRA is upholding your rights to gun ownership. They are paid by gun manufactures who want to sell guns, and what better way to make sure the NRA lobby's for gun ownership so they have people to sell their products to. This is all business covered by saying they are protecting your rights. What about your right not to have your ass checked out at an air port. Cont...

Don from Oak Park  

Posted: August 3rd, 2012 3:03 PM

The NRA's responsibility is to ensure that your rights according to the constitution are upheld. The Government's responsibility is to ensure the public safety. The individual gun owner has a responsibity use the firearm in a lawful way. Assuming that because a group lobby's for the protection of your rights that they are then responsible for ensuring you use your rights within the law is nuts. And furthermore, removes the responsibility from where it truly lies, the individual.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 3rd, 2012 10:43 AM

Scott P. Delaney, it doesn't take months to receive a FOID card. As for Ken Trainor being able to receive one, chances are good he would because a news reporter filed for a card requesting one for child and the child received one.

Scott P. Delaney from Joliet  

Posted: August 3rd, 2012 7:14 AM

Mr. Trainor claims that "We're scared and we don't feel safe . . . " Perhaps Mr. Trainor should go buy one of those "easily accessible" guns. After the few MONTHS it's going to take him to get his FOID card (if he can) and the waiting period to take possession of the weapon after purchase AND complied with whatever registration requirements Oak Park has enacted, then he can write again about how "easily" he was able to purchase a gun. I'd look for that article around January 2013.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 5:12 PM

Dan, include the 4th word, "militia". How organized are gun owners if they are needed to be called upon to protect our nation against being over run after they broke through the local and National Police Agencies, National Guard and the Reserves? There must be some type of training that is offered by the NRA, that we are not aware of.

paul from oak park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 3:27 PM

The solution is simple, make yourself a t-shirt that says on the front "Don't Shoot!". And on the back "I'm on the Do Not Kill List"

Dan in Oak Park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 9:43 AM

Ken, Let me understand you. A madman with a single shot musket is a bad guy, but a madman with an automatic weapon and a large magazine committing mass murder makes the NRA the bad guy? This follows the President's logic of - He didn't do it, the NRA did it!


Posted: August 2nd, 2012 9:08 AM

to drop off kids at school? Or to a football game at Soldier Field? People who don't own guns also have rights. The first three words of the Second Amendment are "A well regulated" but that isn't the part we usually hear about.


Posted: August 2nd, 2012 9:03 AM

Matt - the argument about the decisions of non-gun owners being forced on gun owners has some validity. But the opposite is actually more the case now. Gun rights are expanding. Concealed carry laws are more prevalent. I'm fine with responsible gun ownership. The problem is that it's responsible right up until the time it's not. So that can't be the only criterion. Most (not all)people don't begrudge responsible gun ownership. They differ on what that means. Should it be ok to carry a gun (cont)


Posted: August 2nd, 2012 8:15 AM

If you chose to not own a gun that is your decision. If you chose to rely on the police for protection that is your decision. If you find security behind only a locked door that is your decision. The problem arises when your decisions are forced on the rest of us. My belief, "assault weapons" serve only one purpose, that is they prevent me from being the hunted.Finally, how is the gun ban working out for Chicago?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 8:10 AM

Anne Jordan-Baker - Truth is Holmes bought those guns but was not legally allowed to own, handle or use firearms while he was being treated for mental health issues. The laws and regulations are in place, the system broke down. I bet the procedure for reporting psychiatric treatment to law enforcement is foreign to most in the medical community. Patient doctor confidentiality issues could be overcome but reporting has a low priority and is something that mental health providers just never think about.

Anne Jordan-Baker from Oak Park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 7:18 AM

Ken, I appreciate the attention you draw to this latest incident of mass murder by someone with a legally-owned gun and ammunition. As a parent and a person of faith, I think that those of us who have had enough of this violence should remember that for us, too, "With freedom comes responsibility. With great freedom comes great responsibility." We have the great freedom and great responsibility to build a country that protects innocent people from gun violence.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 1:00 AM

Cont.... All gun owners will be required to carry insurance too, just like car owners. You need insurance to pay for accidental shootings. People carrying illegally owned guns without any legal reason will be subject to a 10 thousand dollar fine.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 12:56 AM

Cont.. and that is asking a lot from a person who may be scared enough to start firing at anything and that is dangerous. The responsibility of gun owners should be to take 160 hours of training in on aspects including the law before owning a gun. A good group like the NRA should be able to stand behind that. After all, who knows gun responsibility better then the NRA. Lets get the laws on the books and get people registered. Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 12:53 AM

Cont... Most people with guns will never need to defend themselves with a gun. People who own guns and count on their gun for home security instead of a secure front door and windows are asking for a problem. Security doesn't start with a gun, but if all security has been breached, it is good to know you do have protection while waiting for the Police to arrive, but it needs to be in the hands of a very qualified person who knows to make a full identity before firing Cont....

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 12:49 AM

Cont... Guns are here and they aren't going to go away. I do not think much of anyone owning more than one or possibly two guns because I equate that with people who get more than one or two tattoos. It becomes a habit, not a need. I would say that even if the theater was packed with gun packing people, they percentage of someone really moving it to return fire would be very minimal. Not a lot of people are trained for that, or naturally have the reaction ability. Cont....

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 2nd, 2012 12:45 AM

question, thank you for replying. My point is most everyone is like you regarding guns, regardless if you own one or not. I say most because there are going to be times when you hear about someone who legally owns a gun shooting someone else. Good example is the State Trooper who shot the person he knew just recently. Those cases don't happen as much as people shooting other people with weapons that are not legally obtained. I'm not pro or against guns. Cont...


Posted: August 1st, 2012 11:43 PM

Q-in response: 1. I don't currently own a gun. 2. How long it takes depends on where I live. I'm guessing that if I'm motivated I could buy a gun within 24 hours and possibly come up with one in less time (borrow, steal, etc.). It's my understanding that I'd have to wait 24 hours to legally purchase a gun in Illinois but I don't know for certain that's the case. 3. I wouldn't use a gun, legal or illegal, to extract revenge.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 7:11 PM

question, 3 scenarios for you. 1. You are very mad at someone and you want to take revenge with the gun you legally own. 2. You want revenge but you don't own a gun, how long will it take you to get a gun legally or illegally? 3. Would the first and second scenario ever apply to you?


Posted: August 1st, 2012 6:23 PM

If all gun owners and gun dealers are so responsible and upstanding how do we end up with so many people killed by guns? It's not enough to say those acts are perpetrated by criminals. They get the guns somewhere. The Colorado shooter got his guns and ammo legally and so did the shooter at Virginia Tech. People are still dead and injured. Lives are still shattered. That's where the discussion is. Not baby mamas or pistol competitions or Hemingway.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 5:27 PM

If Hemmingway was going to do himself in, he would find a way. The SSN suggestion would not include any medical or personal information. Just a big list of numbers. If one of those numbers came up on a gun purchase background check the seller could put a hold on the sale until the circumstances were resolved. At least it would flag the true nut cases and if it prevents one Aurora incident the cost would be justified.


Posted: August 1st, 2012 5:23 PM

@ OPRFDad. Best comment I have read on this board this year. Good day to you, sir.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 3:34 PM

Cont... How anyone can admire them, and require more guns then the person has fingers and toes to pull the trigger. No one in this Country is likely to enter into a fire fight, and even with the sick individual in Colorado, with a smaller magazine size, could have meant more would have escaped his ravages. Gun owners, you really don't need to defend your rights to protect yourself, but you will need to move to another State if you want to adorn your body with gun's.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 3:30 PM

Cont... who murdered people in a movie theater belonged to any gun organization. I do know that if the size of the magazines are limited, it would require the shooter to spend a moment to make a change, and during that moment, a gun packing community would have a free opportunity to fire back. The Veteran from WW II who was attacked in Chicago,could have used a gun against the assholes who attacked and beat him. Gun's can be useful for self defense, but it's difficult for me to think Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 3:27 PM

Ray Simpson, Ernest Hemmingway ended his life with a gun, and if the SSN system was set up as Ray Simpson mentions, it would be a good direction to try. There will be a problem with a mental health professional releasing information to a computer of people who should not be owning a gun, and then try and take the gun away. The person will said you will need to pry from my dead cold fingers. Gun's are certainly a problem when used illegally, but I don't think the sick individual Cont...

Mike from Oak Park  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 1:31 PM

You are preaching to the choir, we are the NRA.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 9:46 AM

The NRA sponsors shooting events all over our country and their safety requirements are awesome. I have participated in the National Matches 6 times at Camp Perry in Ohio. You do not move without commands from the tower and anyone who does anything dangerous is thrown off the range. The discipline is absolute and final. Every match begins with a review of the rules. These are citizens who obey the rules and know what safety is all about. Competitive pistol shooting is a demanding mental sport that requires physical and mental skills. Ernest Hemmingway declared pistol competition and pro golf the 2 most challenging sports in the wold.


Posted: August 1st, 2012 9:31 AM

Ken's title also applies to every baby mamma who gets knocked up and then wants the state to take care of her and her kids. But let's focus on the NRA and legal gun owners rather than the deadbeats of society who buy guns illegally, live off the welfare state and yet cannot be deprived of a single right. Rights without responsibilities - that's the motto of the new millenium.


Posted: August 1st, 2012 9:19 AM

The NRA is made up of common citizens all across this land. We pay dues so that we have a voice to defend our Rights from the knee-jerk reactions of folks like Ken here. Never has the NRA defended the actions of mass murderers, to suggest so is ridiculous. Ken mentions a "herd of docile humanity", he is likening Americans to cows...which is what folks like Ken want our society to be. Instead, lets actually punish criminals and show them real consequences for their actions.


Posted: August 1st, 2012 8:11 AM

Hey Ken, thanks for the reminder. My check to the NRA just went in the mail. I even added a little extra in your name!

Charleton Down From The Mountain  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 8:02 AM

Oooo boy, get a crazy man shooting up a gun-free zone and all the anti-gunners come out and blame the evil NRA, boo hoo. News flash for Trainor, I need mine for self-protection. I live in the land of 30 min response times. So there's outrage when a suburban location gets shot up, but every week Chicago posts a bigger body count than Aurora Co. Where's the outrage there? Anyone think that limiting magazine size is gonna help there?

Ray Simpson from Oak park  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 7:38 AM

The NRA has never opposed withholding firearms from people with mental disorders. The Colorado shooter is obviously insane and his doctor should have reported that. The laws are there, the enforcement is not. I have a FOID card, If I were to go over the edge and seek mental care, would anyone check to see if my legal firearms were secure - I bet not! The gun store follows the law and does a background check. Then there is the 3 day waiting period when sanity could be checked. I bet the NRA would give support to a registry of Social security numbers of people who's doctors deem them incapable of owning or using firearms. That registry might not contain anything but the SSN number, which would come up on any background check or a weekly comparison of FOID numbers and the list. The authorities don't need any information beyond the fact that a legal medical provider has flagged this person as a potential problem. Illegal acquisition is another problem, the list would give the police another tool to verify ownership rights. Banning firearms, as Ken advocates, has never proved to be a solution. We tried it here and Chicago is still trying to enforce unconstitutional ordinances. I would bet that none of the Chicago murders have been by people with FOID cards or legally secured guns. If the problem is the actions of people who ignore the law, how are more laws the answer? Our politicians will tell you that when you send them back to Washington, this time, they will support legislation to solve the problem. The NRA has never supported gun violence or defended gun related crime. What they do defend is my rights not to fall pray to the hand wringing diatribes we hear from Ken and his fellow progressives. The NRA is not the monster that Ken portrays , but is a firewall against those who think they know all of the answers and you do not.

Carl from Chicago  

Posted: August 1st, 2012 6:47 AM

It is clear that this author is frustrated, but methinks his ire is misdirected.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2018

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2018 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Classified Ad

Latest Comments